In his post, Martin Williamson argues that once we go down the technology route, you must go the whole hog. I agree we must, and I’m sure we eventually will, but that doesn’t mean the shift from zero to hundred must happen in one single leap. Had that been the case, the third umpire would never have been introduced for line decisions, because at the time technology was nowhere close to coming up with a solution for lbws or caught-behinds.
The whole process of bringing technology into the fold of decision-making will be a gradual, step-by-step process, and in going down that route, the only question that needs answering is this: is technology more accurate than the human eye in getting that aspect of the decision right? If the answer is yes (obviously, without hindering the flow of the game too much), then we must give technology a chance.
Currently, technology isn’t conclusive in detecting inside-edges onto pad, but it does pretty much everything else very accurately in the case of lbws: Hawk-Eye’s tracking system predicts if the ball would have hit the stumps or not, while the mat on the pitch offers error-free information on whether the ball pitched in line or not. Combine the two, and technology has plenty to offer to help umpires get more decisions right than they currently do. As and when a foolproof system for detecting edges emerges, I’ll plump for adding that into the technology repertoire as well, but just because that aspect isn’t satisfactorily error-free, it shouldn’t mean we shun the other, more accurate aspects as well. The aim is to eventually achieve perfection – or come as close to it as possible – but it can only be achieved through small, continuous improvements, not a quantum leap.
Bob Woolmer, the former Test cricketer and current coach of Pakistan, will join the debate on October 27.
